NIROD KANTA BHAKTA Vs. ANIMESH SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.12.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Barasat, North-24 Parganas as the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 113 of 1997 which arose out of the judgment and order dated 30th August, 1998 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah in T.S. No. 96 0f 1990 of that Court. The learned Munsif decreed the suit on contest and while granting a decree of khas possession in favour of the plaintiff after evicting the defendant from the suit property, he directed the defendant-tenant to vacate the suit property within sixty days from the date of that order. Being aggrieved by that judgment and order the tenant-defendant preferred the said title Appeal before the Court of District Judge (Sr. Division) wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) who heard it and passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal/and affirming the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court.

(2.) Being aggrieved thereby the defendant-tenant has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Court below as erroneous and illegal and hence liable to be set aside. The plaintiff-landlord filed the suit for eviction of the defendant tenant on the grounds of his default in payment of rent by the tenant and also of reasonable requirement on the part of the landlord. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations of the plaintiff. He denied that he was a defaulter in payment of rent, since he had already deposited all the rents due to the landlord for the suit premises and secondly, his case was that the plaintiff had no reasonable requirement for the suit property for his own use and occupation or for the use and occupation by the other members of his family as alleged, because the accommodation which was in his possession at that time was quite sufficient for the purpose.

(3.) As regards the question whether the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent due to the plaintiff-landlord it was found by the trial Court that he was not a defaulter and that finding has not been challenged by the plaintiff.